Sir Keir Starmer is “focused on deepening our special relationship with the United States”, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty told the Commons.

Concluding a debate on Lord Mandelson’s dismissal as US ambassador, Mr Doughty said: “The Prime Minister and this Government are focused on deepening our special relationship with the United States in the interests of people across the Atlantic, for jobs, for growth, for prosperity, for security, for our defence.

“That relationship with the United States is a relationship that has endured, is enduring and will endure for the prosperity and security of our peoples well into the future.”

Conservative MP Dr Luke Evans asked Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty why he was responding to questions about Lord Mandelson rather than Sir Keir Starmer himself.

Dr Evans asked: “Why is he here and not the Prime Minister answering those questions? Because he clearly can’t answer them, and that’s no disrespect to him.

“The Prime Minister said he didn’t know something, now he knows something. Could I ask, where is the Prime Minister and why is he not at the dispatch box?”

Responding, Mr Doughty said: “I’m here responding for the Government, I’m the minister for North America, and he will also understand that there are very important matters taking place today that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are involved with.

“And, of course, we’ve seen the launch of the new Hillsborough Law today as well, which was referenced during the debate.”

Labour has been accused of sending the minister responding to the Lord Mandelson debate “to the slaughter”.

Conservative former minister Sir Alec Shelbrooke questioned why new Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper was not there to respond to the debate, with Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty sent in her place.

Sir Alec said it was one of the “most serious issues” the house has debated this Parliament.

He said: “I have a huge amount of respect for the minister who’s going to have to respond to this debate, but he has been sent to the slaughter today.

“This was a decision that was made around the Cabinet table.”

Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey has urged MPs to “remember the victims” of Jeffrey Epstein and said he believes Sir Keir Starmer “owes them a personal apology”.

Sir Ed said: “As we remember the victims, how must it have felt for them to see Donald Trump, one of Epstein’s closest friends and a man found liable for sexual abuse himself, become President of the United States?

“How must it have felt for the victims to see another of Epstein’s closest friends made British ambassador to the United States?

“How must it have felt for the victims to see the Prime Minister defend Lord Mandelson last week, even after he’d seen those appalling messages?

“How must it have felt for them to hear ministers say, even after Mandelson was sacked, that his appointment was a risk worth taking?”

Stephen Flynn, the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), said that it was a “complete disgrace” that Lord Mandelson had been appointed as ambassador.

He told the Commons: “What a complete disgrace. The only thing that seems to have caused any consternation for the Prime Minister in any of this is not that that happened, but the fact that for a short period, Peter Mandelson appeared to think Jeffrey Epstein was innocent.”

He added: “What has happened to the moral compass of this Place, of the office of Prime Minister, where we can simply accept a rationale such as that?”

Independent MP Apsana Begum, who had the Labour whip removed after going against the Government in a vote on the two-child benefit cap, criticised the differing standards for MPs and Lord Peter Mandelson.

Intervening, Ms Begum said: “I am too listed in this House as an Independent, not for matters related to conduct or duty of candour but for voting with my conscience to scrap the two-child limit policy, a policy supported by the former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown and the Children’s Commissioner.

“And my suspension from the Labour whip was applied over a year ago, within minutes of my vote. Does she agree with me that myself and the Mother of the House (Diane Abbott), and others, appear to be held to some standards while Lord Mandelson appears to be held to another?”

Sir Edward Leigh, the Father of the House, has asked if the decision to sack Lord Mandelson was made because of media pressure.

He told the Commons: “Why was the appointment made knowing there were links without understanding their full extent?

“Why was the Prime Minister publicly defending Lord Mandelson up until the revelations emerged, only to sack him for less than a day when the media pressure rose?

“Was he sacked for the content of what was revealed, or merely because the situation became embarrassing?”

He added: “Lord Mandelson was appointed to arguably the most important diplomatic role in the Majesty’s diplomatic service. This is a time of intense international pressure.”

An astonishing moment as all Labour’s frontbenchers look anywhere but at Kemi Badenoch as she eviserates the party over Mandelson.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch says Starmer needs to do three crucial things:

– Come clean about what he knew and when (Not send a junior minister to cover for him)

– He needs to publish the Epstein Files in full

– He needs to take responsibility for the appointment of Mandelson.

“The Prime Minister is not here. Because he is hiding from parliament and hiding from questions.

“I know he’s a busy man, but confidence in him and his government rests on him being able to account for what happened. And so far no one is taking any responsibility!”

Dame Emily reveals that the Foreign Office “did not contribute” to the vetting process, which was carried out by the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team.

“Nor were any issues raised by the FCDO as a result of the Cabinet Office process.”

She asks whether the CO missed the “glaring red flag” of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein.

Dame Emily says she set out questions to the Foreign Secretary last Friday.

These included:

– What concerns were raised by any agencies undertaking security clearance ahead of Mandelson’s appointment?

– Was a decision taken to dismiss any such security concerns?

– If so was such a decision taken by the FCDO or No. 10?

– Was usual vetting suspended or altered?

Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Committee, is up next.

She says the cmmt. asked repeatedly to scrutinise Lord Mandelson’s appointment.

“These requests were made often and privately, and they have been turned down.”

She slammed briefings by the FCDO claiming her committee were offered the opportunity to question Mandelson while in Washington.

This is not true.

David Davis says that the survivors of crimes should not “have to do the heavy lifting of holding the powerful to account”.

The Tory grandee asks whether the Government will now live up to the words of the Bill in its own Hillsborough Act imposing a duty of candour on public bodies

Davis raises key questions about the failure of the vetting process.

Everything he’s said today is in the public domain. He quips it doesn’t take James Bond, just Google.

One MP says it raises the requirement for pre-appointment hearings by Commons committees, like in the US, to scrutinise appointments like Mandelson.

“No. 10 was well aware that Mandelson continued his relationship with Epstein after he was convicted as a paedophile.

“How the Prime Minister can possibly have thought it was wise to appoint a man who is on record as consorting with alleged murderers, and convicted paedophiles to a position of power is utterly unfathomable.”

David Davis is working his way through a potted history of Peter Mandelson, taking on each of his scandals.

It paints an astonishing portrait of a man who was wholly unsuitable to be given a fourth top government job, let alone a second or a third.

They include dodgy business dealings, close relationships with Russian oligarchs, free yacht stays, and earning large sums from business dealings that could have compromised him in the top DC diplomatic role.

David Davis says Mandelson was ‘too morally floored’ to be given the job.

He details that Mandelson’s history made it clear he is “easily dazzled by wealth and glamour, and who is willing to use his public position to pursue those things for himself.

“This was visible very early in his career, even to his friends.”

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says it was “slightly odd that prior to the appointment of Lord Mandelson, there was obviously not sufficient due diligence done, and on the day before it was dismissed, there were apparently a lot of emails available to the Prime Minister which he either wasn’t given or didn’t read.”

He said Mandelson’s behaviour in the past was “well known” and he shouldn’t have been appointed “in the first place”.

Labour MP Richard Burgon has taken aim at Lord Mandelson’s retention of the Labour Party whip in the House of Lords, despite him losing it for voting against the two child benefit cap last year.

Burgon says it “surprises me that we have a situation where the hon. member for York Central has been unfairly suspended from the Labour whip for opposting disability benefit cuts, while Lord Mandelson retains the Labour whip in the House of Lords.

“Aren’t all of those things decisions by the Prime Minister, and won’t people outside here including Labour members think that’s completely unfair?”

Plaid Cymru Westminster’s leader says “I’m sure he agrees with me that the PM’s judgement and the UK’s presence on the world’s stage has been diminished by this affair.”

David Davis says he agrees, but he doesn’t want to make the debate an ad hominem attack on ministers.

He regrets the fact it’s left the PM diminished.

Here are the key points David Davis is demanding answers on:

– Who knew what and when

– Was Mandelson ever an appropriate character to appoint as ambassador?

– What was the procedure for vetting and why has it gone horribly wrong

– What happened to lead to Mandelson’s demise?

– What do we do now? How do we make this government tell the nation the truth

The debate has just begun, with top Tory David Davis beginning the session.

He says Labour must provide the country with “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” about the Mandelson scandal.

Rachel Reeves was accused of destroying jobs after unemployment rose by more than 230,000 since Labour came to power.

Campaigners warned that young people are particularly hard hit, with many moving on to benefits just when they should be starting a career.

And employers warned there is worse to come as Labour’s new workers’ rights legislation threatens massive job cuts in the retail sector.

Today’s figures show 1.674 million people aged 16 and over are unemployed. This is up from 1.44 million in June to August 2024, a period which includes the July general election, a rise of 234,000.

One of the Prime Minister’s senior aides, Paul Ovenden, quit the Government on Monday after a series of derogatory sexual remarks he made about Diane Abbott in 2017 were published by ITV News.

The fresh departure, alongside that of Lord Mandelson and former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, makes for the loss of three senior figures in the course of two weeks.

Sir Keir Starmer knew there were ‘questions’ about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein when the Prime Minister defended Mandelson in the Commons last week, Sir Keir has admitted.

He was aware when he stood up at PMQs that further revelations were due about Lord Mandelson, because the then ambassador had acknowledged “very embarrassing” messages would surface.

The Prime Minister also knew the Foreign Office had asked Lord Mandelson questions about them, but he insisted he did not know about the content of the emails – or Lord Mandelson’s response to the official inquiries – until Wednesday night.

Emails published by Bloomberg included passages in which Lord Mandelson told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

He is also reported to have told Epstein “I think the world of you” the day before the disgraced financier began his sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in June 2008.

Sir Keir Starmer is facing the prospect of further questions about his leadership after sacking Lord Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington over his links to the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

A three-hour emergency debate will be held in the Commons on Tuesday in which MPs will probe the Prime Minister’s case for sacking Lord Mandelson when he did.

There is no requirement for Sir Keir to attend the urgent debate in the chamber, but it could provide an opportunity for Labour MPs to openly express their discontent with his judgment in the affair.

The Prime Minister on Monday said he felt “angry” after being forced to sack Lord Mandelson.